Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

If I understand you correctly, you're against such a program in principle because that wouldn't be capitalism and so should be dismissed regardless of being eminently better at face value.

I embrace capitalism because it is better at total value. If socialism was capable of providing greater value, I would support that. But it hasn't and according to the best economics theory we got, it can't.

It sounds like you're saying that these kids should walk around squinting so that we don't somehow hinder the economy from producing more and better eyeglasses for future generations. In other words, it sounds like you're mortgaging the present for the future.

I'm okay with the characterization in bold. A courageous man is somebody who does the right thing to benefit others even if it means he doesn't experience the same benefit. Due to the function of exponential growth, when we do this it makes everybody better off. If our antecedents mortgaged the future for themselves, we'd still live in huts, till the soil with our hands and backs, and live at the mercy of warlords.

Children should walk around with wonderful vision. Government programs crowd out private programs. Private programs work better. I don't want the government involved because it harms what it's meant to help. For the future and for the current time, welfare is a bad idea.

[Poopadoop]

I embrace capitalism because it is better at total value. If socialism was capable of providing greater value, I would support that. But it hasn't and according to the best economics theory we got, it can't.

I wouldn't argue otherwise if you're comparing strict capitalism to strict communism. But it's not a black vs. white argument. There's a middle ground that you're happier believing can't be any better. I'm arguing it can.

For example, if some of those taxes that were currently being spent on stimulating economic growth (for example, by not being taken in the first place) were instead used to repair some of the areas where capitalism is inadequate, then you may end up with less wealthy people, but the overall happiness is greater.

You can argue that this somehow will make people unhappy at some vague time in the future and that only money matters so having the most productive system is always best. I'm saying it ain't that simple.

[wufwugy]

For example, if some of those taxes that were currently being spent on stimulating economic growth (for example, by not being taken in the first place) were instead used to repair some of the areas where capitalism is inadequate, then you may end up with less wealthy people, but the overall happiness is greater.

I can't find examples of where that would be, though.

[Poopadoop]

I can't find examples of where that would be, though.

Maybe that's because you haven't looked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

All of the countries in the top ten have an economic system that in comparison to that in the US is highly socialist. But according to you, this should ruin their economies and make them all miserable.

[wufwugy]

Maybe that's because you haven't looked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

All of the countries in the top ten have an economic system that in comparison to that in the US is highly socialist. But according to you, this should ruin their economies and make them all miserable.

I meant examples of how governments can improve capitalism.

The "highly socialist" attribute given to those countries is greatly overstated and the association doesn't hold up when more countries are included. Examples include how many of those countries have elements that are substantially more capitalist friendly than the US.

A more telling association is that those countries have similar cultures and demographics that embraced the Protestant work ethic.

[OngBonga]

I meant examples of how governments can improve capitalism.

How about nationalising the railways? By taking into public ownership of the railways, both public transport and goods freight can be made cheaper, either by cutting out profit, or by subsidising using tax.

By getting more people and goods moving on the trains, there are less cars and lorries on the road, and more people travelling directly into city centres. This has an obvious benefit to the economy.

Private rail means multiple companies leasing different parts of the network (none of which are competing which each other). This means that for me to go to Cornwall, I need to pay two, maybe three, different companies for my travel, all of whom want a slice of profit. This makes it expensive as hell. A quick google search tells me a return from Kidderminster to Truro tomorrow is fucking £300. Jesus wept, I could probably find a cheaper taxi. How in the world can it be three to four times more expensive to get the train to Cornwall than to drive? It should be cheaper! (It's a 500 mile round trip by road).

Government has a place in a capitalist model, and that place should be to ensure essential infrastructure is not at the mercy of profit.

[wufwugy]

How about nationalising the railways? By taking into public ownership of the railways, both public transport and goods freight can be made cheaper, either by cutting out profit, or by subsidising using tax.

Profit is essential to determining what works. Without he profit motive, the train system would maintain a stasis of gradual decline. We've seen this in public infrastructure everywhere. The reason the profit motive is so important is that it incentivizes producers of goods and services to innovate so that consumers want more of what they provide.

By getting more people and goods moving on the trains, there are less cars and lorries on the road, and more people travelling directly into city centres. This has an obvious benefit to the economy.

You are correct that this in general is good. However, the underlying math for how good it is (or how bad) is in its efficiency. If the government subsidizes this (which necessarily means it ignores costs), we would end up finding very big inefficiencies like colossal traffic jams at choke points.

Jesus wept, I could probably find a cheaper taxi.

Great point. When the price of a good or service increases, consumers look for substitutions. When there are profit motives and no price controls (or other regulations), this drives innovation and lowers costs while improving quality and quantity. If, instead, the government subsidized rail travel, a lot of entrepreneurs who have good ideas would be pushed out of the market since only the wealthy could compete at such high entry barriers. We would again end up in a system where the rail is there and never improving while stymieing improvement of other things.

Government has a place in a capitalist model, and that place should be to ensure essential infrastructure is not at the mercy of profit.

Without profit, things don't improve. With government intervention, things don't improve.